Alan,
I fully agree that there is risk involved in SGLB, just as there is risk involved with EVERYTHING ELSE. I believe you have to look at the overall situation to understand the risks in the more specific instance.
That BGO (blinding glimpse of the obvious) aside, here the overall situation is the transition for Additive Manufacturing techniques from a prototyping tool to a production tool. PR3D will facilitate production in a significant manner due to the reduction in part qualification and quality assurance and is of a comparatively very limited value for prototyping. - If we can agree upon that, the rest of what I will say is of value. If we do not agree with that basic concept, then I assure you, nothing I say below will impact your assessment of the risk-reward balance or your opinion.
When you focus on the fact that although INSPECT has been available for 15 months there have been no significant sales, you seem to ignore the fact that INSPECT and CONTOUR are designed to assist in the overall needs of Additive Manufacturing for production runs rather than prototyping. The value of PR3D is going to be in the reduction of inspection and qualification costs to the tune of an estimated 25%.
Not until OEMs are actively pursuing production runs of significant numbers will PR3D have real utility to them. Certainly not until then will there be a justification for the cost of PR3D as it currently exists, nor is there any real incentive for them to buy now rather than wait to see if a more improved PR3D, either as PR3D version 2.0 (3.0 etc) from Sigma or quality assurance monitoring from EOS, Concept Laser, Materialise or Joe's basement arrives at or just before the time that they begin the larger production runs via Additive Manufacturing.
As Greg Morris has said on multiple occasions, AM techniques is applied to designs that are achievable via traditional subtractive manufacturing techniques, then AM is of very limited value. However, if the engineers and designers are going to use AM to achieve designs with benefits and features NOT ACHIEVABLE via subtractive techniques (e.g. one piece parts with curvilinear internal channels and lattice structures with internal cavaties to maximize strength and minimize weight) then AM can open up a great value not available by current manufacturing techniques.
It is a nearly circular problem. At the current time AM is utilized more for prototyping and small lot production of parts rather than larger production runs because there has not been adequate methods of IPQA fully demonstrated and accepted and the part designs for larger number production parts which require AM have not been adopted by OEMs who will need to qualify those parts generically as well as individually.
If you believe GE, then we are actually on the cusp of AM production runs. All of the JTDAs, AmericaMakes projects, demonstration projects etc. are the necessary steps to reach the point where production runs via AM can be reasonably contemplated because the technology is nearing (or at) the level of adequacy to allow for the acceptance of PR3D as, if not THE, but AN accepted method of IPQA.
One can look at many many industries and see how there needed to be growth in one aspect to support growth in another before EITHER could grow dramatically. For example, gas stations and automobiles... or more currently electrical charging stations and electric cars.
Because I believe that AM techniques have not yet been developed sufficiently to utilize PR3D as an IPQA technique because industry has not been ready to produce large numbers of parts via AM, thus, industry has not been ready to buy PR3D software/hardware packages. Marketing expertise or lack of marketing expertise would have limited impact. Now that we are on the cusp, now that there is a beginning of production via OEMs, marketing expertise, sales representatives, support personnel, technicians etc etc are all beginning to become relevant.
patience and GLTA
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
